alt.politics.usa.republican

On 2007-08-26, RD (The Sandman) postulated:
> ACOG < @ > wrote in news: $
> @ :
>
>> On 2007-08-25, Moon Goddess postulated:
>>> Let's try to start framing this argument as it truly should be. It's
>>> about human rights!
>>>
>>> If we consider RKBA to be a human right, then let's throw that at them
>>> instead of "anti-gun". "Anti-gun" is easy for them, "anti-human
> rights"
>>> won't be!
>>>
>>> /
>>>
>>
>> The "right" to be able to repeatedly kill instantly from a
>> distance is not compatible with the ideal behind human
>> rights for all.
>
> Damn, that must be why it isn't a right and there are many, many laws
> against it...You think?

You didn't define "it" very well here.

Assuming you refer to the question of the RKBA being
regarded as a "human right" rather than just the second
amendment of the USA, your statement makes little sense.

A lack of a positive does not equal a negative.

>> So maybe you could try framing your argument as it "truly
>> is", that you live in a constant media-numbed state of
>> elevated fear, and you've invested in the idea that a
>> tooled-up standoff scenario is the best way to deal with
>> this nightmare, rather than facing up to the real causes of
>> that insanity that infects so much of American life.
>>
>> If we consider the right to be free of lethal instruments of
>> death in our domestic environments to be a human right, then
>> the RKBA is indeed the core of the insanity that prevents
>> that dream becoming a reality.
>
> Not really. Disarm the law abiding citizen and you have a police force
> whose response may be measured in days and have no legal requirement to
> protect you. You wish to control the lethal instruments of death? Are
> you prepared to control all knives, automobiles, poisons, things that can
> make explosives, fist, greed, social conditions, cultural nuances, etc..

One statement does not mean the other by default. I was
talking about the "human rights" issue here, not the
predictable pro-RKBA script. Thats a different issue.


>> If you're not part of the solution...
>
> We are. Taking guns from us will not cause violent crime to drop.
>

Again, this was not the subject I was commenting on.

--
ACOG_in_the_machine